How Can You Have A Vote In Favour Of Anything But The Status Quo?

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47050665
How does that work logically?

[ToraToraTora]

all they've done here is tip our hand to the EUSSR, well done geniuses. I'd love to play poker with these eejits.

[jim360]

Good question. MPs are probably wanting to send a signal, rather than set a course -- for the time being, at least. There are still ways to avoid a No Deal Brexit, if that is the will of the House: these have been discussed in some detail already, so I'll be brief, but, either:

1. Parliament passes new legislation mandating the PM to withdraw Article 50 notification unilaterally, or;
2. Parliament passes new legislation mandating the PM to request an extension of the Article 50 period, which the EU will be likely (although not certain!) to accept.

For the moment, though, MPs have sent a message along the lines of "We don't want to leave without a Deal and it is now down to the PM to find one we can accept, but we won't do anything that might be seen to reduce her chances of achieving this."

[ToraToraTora]

surely it would have been better to send a signal to the EU that we are prepared to leave with no deal. Now there is no incentive for the EU to budge on the backstop that we know is unacceptable.

[jim360]

Incidentally, your first post would make more sense if the EU had been in any way secretive about what they were wanting. But they have not. Virtually total transparency through about the EU's position, negotiating stance, objectives, and so on.

Presumably, the real problem isn't that the EU are better at bluffing than we are; the problem is that they're openly showing us a Straight Flush and we're playing on trying to bluff them with our pair of deuces.

[ToraToraTora]

PM: "simply opposing no deal is not enough to stop it" - discuss!

[Old_Geezer]

They reasonably wish May to try to get rid of the backstop but I don't see the votes implying that, that alone changing will ensure support for a new agreement. Meanwhile the idiots have hobbled her in the renegotiation request by suggesting the House hasn't the guts to follow through with the referendum result if an adequate deal has not been offered. Why should the EU agree anything on hearing that ? Still looks as if no deal is likely to be the only thing on offer after May's renegotiation attempt/request.

[jim360]

It would only have been better to signal that we were prepared to leave without a Deal if that was actually our position. By definition, given that Parliament is ultimately the decision-maker, it is not what we're prepared to do. There are, I would suggest, maybe only a dozen MPs who are genuinely prepared to leave without actually arranging a deal, and the rest are only interested in *pretending* that they are as a negotiating tactic. There is probably wider support for No Deal in the country as a whole, but that's unlikely to ever be tested.

I think you're looking to the wrong amendment anyway. As your question states, Parliament can say whatever it likes about No Deal, but if it's the default then if they want to avoid it then they actually have to *do* something active to achieve that. The vague statement "that this House does not support leaving without a Deal", or whatever the precise wording of the Spelman amendment is, carries no such weight. On the other hand, the Brady Amendment -- the one that the government and leading Brexiteers backed -- that actually *does* send a signal that the House doesn't want a No Deal exit, because they are chasing changes to the deal in order to avoid this instead.

Whether or not those changes can be achieved is another matter, but make no mistake: The Brady Amendment undermines No Deal equally as much, if not more, than the one you're complaining about.

[ToraToraTora]

jim; "Presumably, the real problem isn't that the EU are better at bluffing than we are; the problem is that they're openly showing us a Straight Flush and we're playing on trying to bluff them with our pair of deuce" - noo jim you are letting your anti British gene shine through again. They don't want no deal so they would try and avoid it. What we have done is tell them that we won't do the nuclear option, QED they won't move. This is not about the cards it's about how they are played and we just made an error. No point in TM going back to them now, she'll get nowt.

[ichkeria]

Two amendments passed: one merely expresses in numbers what we all know anyway, that most MPs don’t want a no deal, so it won’t really have changed the EU’s impression of that, or shouldn’t have.
The other allegedly demonstrates to the EU what sort of agreement might have the support of parliament. The problem with that is that it envisages the EU doing what they said they would not do, and have already repeated since the vote, namely, reopen - effectively tear up - the existing agreement. Unless they change their stance on that it’s all a complete waste of time.

[ToraToraTora]

jim: "It would only have been better to signal that we were prepared to leave without a Deal if that was actually our position. " - come on jim! When the star ship enterprise was taken over by an alien, kirk engaged self destruct rather than lose control. The count down started when the ship was close to getting blown to bits the alien relented, he knew Kirk would go through with it. (This is an analogy, I do not think that no deaL is self destruct)

[jim360]

No Deal is, and always has been, a far greater threat to the UK than the EU. That's not my "anti-British gene", which I have none of, it's merely a statement of pragmatism. It is true that the EU doesn't want No Deal, and neither should we; but by about now it should be clear that at the very least No Deal is a Samson Act, not a Nuclear Option. It hurts us both, and the UK especially; it therefore never has been, and never should have been, a negotiating position to use it as a threat.

Still, I've give you one point: it is almost certainly true that the EU is not going to budge at all. The mistake, though, is in thinking that all we needed to do, in order to change that, was for five more MPs to switch sides on a vacuous amendment that changes nothing.

[jim360]

Are you referring to the "Corbomite Manoeuvre"? Problem there is that is was a real bluff, because there never was any such Corbomite. So your analogy doesn't quite work...

[ToraToraTora]

ich: "Unless they change their stance on that it’s all a complete waste of time" - so we must leave with no deal?

[jim360]

Still, thanks for reminding me of that, I've now got a new political gag for the future:

"Corbynite Manoeouvre (n): When a politician threatens to tell you his position, just as soon as he's figured out what it is."

[ToraToraTora]

jim: "it is almost certainly true that the EU is not going to budge at all." - so no deal must be inevitable. As the PM says voting against no deal is not enough they have to concoct something and the EU won't budge I can't see any outcome but no deal.

[Canary42]

/// letting your anti British gene shine through again. ///

Oh no, not that old hoary one again, from the poster who possibly posts more anti-British than most (like this one for example, deriding our democratically appointed Government).

[jim360]

We'll have to wait and see. In the end, tonight's vote has only served to force the decision on whether we leave on 29th March or note, and if so how, to be postponed for a couple of weeks. Nobody really won anything today, except Theresa May who has won a little more time. On that, at least, we're probably both in agreement that it ain't a good thing.

[ToraToraTora]

jim, the Corbomite manouvre is a classic but that's just convincing the enemy you have a powerful weapon. We are are not in that game we are trying to convince the enemy that we will if necessary take a course that harms ourselves (if you believe that): more like "let that be your last battle": https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708435/

[jim360]

I suppose also there's "Scientific Method" from Voyager, where Janeway decides to get rid of aliens by charging at a binary star system. I'm not quite sure it's an example worth following, to be honest (and I'm also annoyed at the episode anyway because it makes out scientists to be heartless immoral b'stards. My parents were married when I was born, I'll have you know :P )

[ichkeria]

What seems most likely to happen at the moment is that the government’s latest plan will be sent packing - I think they are relying on their “trump card” that here is something they can show the EU that Parliament can agree on - at which point it comes back to February 13 and many of the amendments and more besides we saw defeated tonight may come back with greater support.